자동차소유권이전등록절차인수(등)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1.The following facts of recognition shall be apparent in the records or significant to this Court:
In filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, the Plaintiff stated the Defendant’s address as “In Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, 101 Dong 201, 201,” while the court of first instance served a copy of the complaint as the address and ordered the Plaintiff to correct the address when the service was impossible due to the address unknown. On January 31, 2013, the enforcement officer of the Incheon District Court, who received the application from the Plaintiff for special delivery of the same address, received the copy of the complaint against the Defendant directly as the Defendant’s employee.
B. However, as the Defendant did not submit a written reply one month after the lapse of one month, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 19, 2013, when it was impossible to serve a notice of the sentencing date as the address and as a closed door, by means of registered mail, on February 27, 2013. On March 19, 2013, which is the designated sentencing date, the Defendant was absent.
C. On March 25, 2013, when a mailman attempted to serve the original copy of the judgment above but is unable to serve due to an addressee’s unknown fact, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordering the defendant to serve the original copy of the judgment by service on April 1, 2013 and posted the original copy of the judgment on the Supreme Court’s website, and the same year.
4. On November 2, 2015, the service became effective, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion.
2. We examine ex officio whether the subsequent appeal of this case is legitimate, as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.
The term "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" under Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on lawful requirements of appeal for subsequent completion, refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the time limit, even though the party had exercised generally due diligence for conducting the procedural acts.